Communication ◦ Prompt (24-hour) response time Collaboration Respect ◦ We owe each other a duty of utmost courtesy and respect as colleagues, professionals, and friends Accountability ◦ Meeting agreed-upon deadlines Fun ◦ All work and no play… makes for a very long and boring semester Who? Cha Xiong and James Schoeberl What do they do? Everything! • Accountability for all issues • Managing each board and all law review members • Alumni relations (fundraising) • Faculty relations Who? Jacob Abdo (Issue 1) Abby Rankin (Issue 2) C. Joelle Groshek (Issue 3) Lauren Schoeberl (Issue 4) Scott Jurchisin (Issue 5 – Sua Sponte) What do they do? • Identify issue theme/topics & solicit authors • Manage editorial process for the issue • Work directly with authors throughout the process Who? Paul Buchel, Alexandra Mueller What do they do? • Identify issue theme/topics & solicit authors • Manage editorial process for the issue • Work directly with authors throughout the process Who? Raha Assadi-Lamouki, Lisa Colburn, Blake DeRosier, Kelly Fermoyle, Theresa Flahaven, Keriann Riehle, Aaron Sampsel, Allira Sharma, Ann Weber, Scott Jurchisin (Issues 1 & 2), Jeff Albright, Tal Bakke, Sarah Holm What do they do? • Manage editorial process for individual articles • Assign authority checks to associates Who? Casey Schofield What do they do? • Pulls sources for articles • Manages production meetings Who? Alex Beeby, Whitney Mark, Stephanie Kinyon What do they do? • Assist associates in the long paper process Assistant Editors & Senior Associate Editors (returning law review members) ◦ Library Liaison ◦ Formatters ◦ Accountability & Support ◦ Operations Manager ◦ Faculty Advisors (Profs. Mike Steenson & Allen Blair) Who? All of you—the incoming new members! What do they do? • • • • • • Authority checks Production meetings Ensure bluebook accuracy Help with law review projects Leave detailed comments to editors Write long paper Co-Editors-in-Chief Executive Editors, Senior Managing Editors & Articles Editors Editors & Managing Editors • Run the show! • Manages the issue; works with authors • Manages the editorial process for the articles; works with associates Assistant Editors & Senior Associate • Assists with editorial process Editors Production Editor • Manages production meetings! Notes & Comments Editors • Supports Associates with their long paper Associates • Authority checks and production meetings! January/April 2015: Current Boards were elected Spring/Summer 2015: Solicit Articles May 19, 2015–June 9, 2015: Write-On Competition July 6, 2015: New Members Announced August 9, 2015: Orientation August 9, 2015 – May 2016: Editing Process January/February 2016: Board elections for next year Develop and select issue topic Solicit articles for publication Manage article submission process Start: Final draft of article submitted to EE. Source Pull 1 Week AC1 1 Week AC2 1 Week Proof 1 1 Week Editor Read 2 days Proof 2 1 Week Editor Read 2 Days EE Read 2 Days Put-Together 1 Day Editor Read 1 Week EE/EIC Read 1 Week Author Read 1 Week EE Revisions 1 Week Formatting 2 Weeks EE/EIC Read 2 Weeks Editor Read 1 Day Final Formatting & EIC Edits 1 Week End: Send to printer. Mail issue! Start: Final draft of article submitted to Managing Editor. Production Editor pulls sources 1 Week Production Meeting 1 1 Week Proof 1 1 Week Production Meeting 2 1 Week Proof 2 / Author Read 1 Week Senior Managing Editor / Managing Editor Read 1 Week Formatting 3 Days EIC/Operations Editor Read 3 Days Author Read 1 Week Final Formatting & EIC Edits 1 Week End: Send to printer. Mail issue! EE: Jacob Abdo Topic: Student Case Notes and Entertainment Law Timeline: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Final Drafts Due: Late-August/Early-September 2015 Put-Togethers: October 2015 Issue Sent to Printer: Mid-/Late-December 2015 Mailed: Mid-January 2015 Managing Editors: Jeff Albright, Tal Bakke, Sarah Holm Topic: General Practice Timeline: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Final Drafts Due: November 2015 Put-Togethers: December 2015 Issue Sent to Printer: January 2016 Mailed: March 2016 EE: Abby Rankin Topic: Mental Health in the Criminal Justice System Timeline: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Final Drafts Due: Mid-September 2015 Put Togethers: November 2015 Issue Sent to Printer: Late-January 2016 Mailed: Early-March 2016 Symposium Editor: Jessica DuBois Topic: Alternative Dispute Resolution Timeline: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Final Drafts Due: late March 2016 Put Togethers: April 2016 Issue Sent to Printer: May 2016 Mailed: June/July 2016 EE: C. Joelle Groshek Topic: Food Law Issues Timeline: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Final Drafts Due: Mid-October 2015 Put Togethers: January 2016 Issue Sent to Printer: March 2015 Mailed: April 2015 EE: Lauren Schoeberl Topic: Small Town and Rural Practice Timeline: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Final Drafts Due: Late-January 2016 Put Togethers: Early-March 2016 Issue Sent to Printer: April 2016 Mailed: May 2016 EE: Scott Jurchisin Topic: Associate Long Papers Timeline: ◦ Final Drafts Due: November 1, 2015 ◦ Published Online: May 2016 Information Sessions: Late November/Early December 2015 Submit Application: December 2015/January 2016 Interviews & Board Selection: January/February 2016 Editorial Board Transition & Training: Spring 2016 Board Selection Criteria Considered: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ACs, Production Meetings, Proofs, Source Pulls, and Put-Together Quality Long Paper Quality Associate Meeting Attendance Meeting CS Hour Requirements Attendance at law review Events Overall Enthusiasm for law review (e.g. coming by law review offices, getting to know current board members, etc.) ◦ Interview performance and application Mitchell Editorial Process Source Pull ACs Proof (1 & 2) (1 & 2) Quote Proof Put-Together Hamline Editorial Process PM 1 Proof 1 PM 2 Mandatory, assigned by editorial board. Elective to finish required CS hours. Proof 2 AC = “Authority Check” ◦ AC1—After the Source Pull. ◦ AC2—After AC1, before Proof 1. ◦ Read assigned footnote range and accompanying text. Make mechanical corrections using the Bluebook, CMOS and the Associate Manual. Most Important Function: ◦ Ensure source material supports the assertion made in the text and correct citations per Bluebook. ACs have specific due dates, which must be met. Therefore, your AC must be returned on time. We will practice how to do an AC later today. You have been assigned various parts of Jones AC1. This assignment is due by 11:59 pm, Saturday, September 19, 2015. Due Date Notes: 1. Review Rule 13-Legislative Materials. 2. Ensure proper en-dash “–” & em-dash “—” use. Notes FN Ranges Abigail Rankin Range 1 Cha Xiong Range 2 James Schoeberl Range 3 Scott Jurchisin Range 4 Assigned FNs PM = “Production Meeting” Where in the process? ◦ After Production Editor pulls sources ◦ Before Proof 1 and Proof 2, respectively. ◦ Read assigned footnote range and accompanying text. Make mechanical corrections using the Bluebook, CMOS and the Associate Manual. Most Important Function: ◦ Ensure source material supports the assertion made in the text and correct citations per Bluebook. Production Meeting Requirements ◦ Production meetings occur on specific dates. You must sign up for at least one meeting per section. Each meeting has 15 open slots. Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 8/21** 9/11 10/2 10/23 11/13 8/28 9/18 10/9 10/30 11/20 9/3** 9/24 10/15** 11/5 9/4** 9/25 10/16** 11/6 ** Indicates an online production meeting Production meeting time & locations: ◦ Time: Thursdays & Fridays: 4:30pm to 7:30pm ◦ Locations: TBD, they will be held at both Mitchell and Hamline Requirements ◦ Must have at least 6 hours per semester ◦ Must have at least 20 hours per year Volunteer / First Response to Email Ways to Get Hours ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Source Pulls Proofs Quote Proofs Put-togethers Source Pull Proofs Proof 1 Quote Proof Put-Together Proof 2 Report Hours to Operations Manager or Log online ◦ Mitchell Associates will have online access to log their CS hours through their student portal. We are working on implementing the same for Hamline Associates, until then, report hours to the Operations Manager. Project - Hours - Description ◦ First associate step in editorial process ◦ Create reference guide for all cited materials Scan all footnotes and determine which can be found electronically (Westlaw, Lexis, HeinOnline, etc.) and which will have to be pulled together in hard copy Includes Interlibrary Loan (ILL) requests The Mitchell Library Liaison will be giving a short presentation on how to make ILL requests later today ◦ Useful to determine whether associates will need to come to school to complete ACs We will practice doing a Source Pull later today. Proofs Quote Proof We will practice doing a Proof and Quote Proof later today ◦ Proof 1—First step after AC2/Production Meeting 1 ◦ Proof 2—Between Author Read & Final Editor Read or after Production Meeting 2 ◦ Proofread the entire article & all citations. Fix lingering grammar and typos, read for consistency, etc. ◦ This is not an AC. ◦ Re-check all direct quotations against original source material for format, alternations, spelling, etc. ◦ Some articles may not have a quote proof if there is not a lot of quoted material. You & other Associates will meet in the Mitchell Law Review Office to proof hard copies of each article in the given issue with red pens. Last chance for corrections before formatting & final edits. We will practice doing a Put-Together later today. [author’s last name]_[stage]_[ACs only: footnote range]_[your last name] Samples: Rankin_SourcePull_Sampsel.xlsx Rankin_AC1_Range2_Sampsel.docx Rankin_AC2_Range7_Sampsel.docx Rankin_PM1_Range3_Sampsel.docx Rankin_Proof1_Sampsel.docx Rankin_Proof2_Sampsel.docx Rankin_QuoteProof_Sampsel.docx Initially, ACs could take 8 to 10 hours to complete. But, this time will decrease with practice. Expect a heavier workload in the fall (2-3 ACs at a time). Usually lighter workload in the spring. There will be ACs over school breaks/holidays. Long paper break (end of October). No work during finals. Earn at least 6 CS hours in the fall and spring, and a minimum of 20 CS hours for the year. Multiple PMs, which last 3 hours each. Attendance/Volunteering at Symposium Monthly Associate meetings Associate Manual ◦ Everyone should have received a digital copy by email. ◦ Contains important information on all aspects of law review ◦ Contains important citation “local rules” Bluebook (20th Edition) ◦ There are spare copies in Mitchell and Hamline law review offices ◦ Access the Bluebook online using a Mitchell law review office computer Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) ◦ Located on the library website ◦ Go-to guide for grammar Table of Contents Contact List ............................................................................................................1 Law Review Dictionary .........................................................................................3 Library Procedures ................................................................................................7 How to Source Pull.................................................................................................9 How to Authority Check .....................................................................................13 AC Checklist .........................................................................................................21 How to Proof .........................................................................................................23 How to do a Quote Proof .....................................................................................25 How to do a Put-Together ...................................................................................27 Citation Policy & Blueboook Reminders ...........................................................29 Purpose............................................................................................................29 Introductory Signals ......................................................................................30 Parentheticals .................................................................................................31 Typefaces ........................................................................................................32 Short Forms ....................................................................................................33 Quotations.......................................................................................................35 Symbols, Numerals, and Capitalization .......................................................37 Cases ................................................................................................................39 Statutes ............................................................................................................40 Session Laws ...................................................................................................42 Books ...............................................................................................................44 Periodical Materials .......................................................................................45 Internet Citations ...........................................................................................46 General Grammar, Usage, and Style Rules .................................................47 Accountability ......................................................................................................51 Long Paper Guidelines and Instructions ...........................................................53 Local Rules are within boxes in the Associate Manual. They override any rule from CMOS or the Bluebook The Bluebook makes use of short form citations optional. The Mitchell|Hamline Law Review uses short form citations wherever practical. Contrary to R. 10.3.1(b), provide a parallel citation to the Minnesota and Northwest reporters for cases that (1) appear in both reporters and (2) were published before 1978. The Minnesota reporter should be recited first in the citation sentence because the reporter name includes the state name. When citing a state statute for a state other than Minnesota, cite to the statute on Westlaw. For example: (West, Westlaw through 2013). Hirt v. Leader Hardware and Furniture Store, 244 N.W.2d 269, 309 Minn. 572 (Minn. 1976). Hirt v. Leader Hardware and Furniture Store, 309 Minn. 572, 244 N.W.2d 269 (1976). Associate Manual, p. 36 Hyphen (“-”): Compound words, separate non- inclusive numbers. For example: “time-barred” or “651-227-9171” En-dash (“–”): Connect ranges of numbers (e.g. 143-44) or open compound adjectives (e.g. “post–World War II”). Em-dash (“—”): Amplify, explain, or set off a phrase. For example: “He failed to do so—nowhere in the agreement was that term included.” Correct the following: “Another relevant canon is ejusdem generis — when construing a catch-all term at the end of a list, the catch-all term is limited by the items that precede it.” Id. at 12-13. Answer: “Another relevant canon is ejusdem generis—when construing a catch-all term at the end of a list, the catch-all term is limited by the items that precede it.” Id. at 12–13. No spaces on either side of an em-dash. En-dash, not hyphen between page ranges. No signal: Use only when cited authority: (1) Directly states proposition; (2) Identifies source of a direct quote; or (3) Identifies authority referred to in the text. E.g.,: There are other authorities that state the same proposition, but citation to the additional authorities would not be helpful. Accord: Two or more sources clearly support the proposition, but the text quotes or refers to only one source. The sources not referred to in the text are introduced by accord. See: Authority clearly supports the proposition but the proposition is not directly stated. See also: Additional material that supports a proposition already cited. Cf.: When the proposition supported is different from the main proposition, but analogous enough to lend support. Compare . . . , [and], . . . with . . . , [and] . . . Example: The text states that a Minnesota statute has not changed between 1979 and 2012. Correct Comparison: Compare MINN. STAT. § 609.02, subdiv. 7a (Supp. 1979), with MINN. STAT. § 609.02, subdiv. 7a (2012). Contra: Where [no signal] would be used for support. But see: Cited authority clearly supports a proposition contrary to the main proposition. -Where the “see” signal would be used for support. But cf.: When comparing two authorities contrary to the stated proposition. -A parenthetical explaining this proposition is strongly recommended. See generally: Cited authority indicates useful background material. This is the one instance in which a pin cite is usually not necessary. To Note: When using signals it is important to use a parenthetical to explain the reasoning for the signal. -Example: See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (stating the general provisions governing discovery). Parenthetical not quoting authority: Parentheticals usually begin with a present participle (word ending with “ing”) in longer parentheticals and the first word is never capitalized. Example: See generally Fed. R. Evid. 402 (establishing that evidence must be relevant to be admissible). Parenthetical quoting authority: Parenthetical information quotes material that reads as a full sentence, it should begin with a capital letter and include closing punctuation. Correct this citation: Minn. R. Crim. P. 2.01 Subd. 1 (Stating “the complaint is a written signed statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged”) - Hint: There are four errors. Correct citation: Minn. R. Crim. P. 2.01 Subd. 1 (“The complaint is a written signed statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”). Give inclusive page numbers, separated by an en dash (–). Always retain the last two digits, but drop other repetitious digits. Example: Pittston Coal Grp. v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105, 113–16 (1988). When referring to cases that have been fully cited previously, there are many acceptable shortcites to the same case. The full citation: State v. Johnson, 813 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012). Acceptable Shortcites: (1) State v. Johnson, 813 N.W.2d at 1. (2) Johnson, 813 N.W.2d at 1. (3) 813 N.W.2d at 1. (4) Id. at 1. Case Names, Statutes, Constitutions etc.: Once a preceding full citation has been made then a shortcite may ONLY be made if: (1) the source is cited in the same footnote or (2) the source can be readily found within the previous five citations, either in long form or short form, including “Id.” -The “within five” rule does not apply to supra and infra cites because they refer directly to a particular footnote and because they cannot be used to refer to cases, statutes, or constitutions, etc. (R. 4.2) Supra: Used when referring back to an authority that has already been fully cited to within a piece. Referring to text above/below the line: See Supra text accompanying note 1. -refers to the text above the line. See Supra note 1 and accompanying text. -refers to the text below the line. Infra: Used when referring to an authority that appears later on in a piece. T1: How to correctly cite a specific states authority. -Alabama Supreme Court (Ala.) -Alaska Supreme Court (Alaska) T6: Common abbreviations -Academy (Acad.) -Employee (Emp.) T10: Abbreviating specific geographical terms T13: Abbreviations for law reviews, newspapers, newsletters, and websites. The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) covers a variety of topics from manuscript preparation and publication to grammar, usage, and documentation. -William Mitchell: Found in the “Subscription Database” in the law library. -Hamline: Can be found in the “Hamline Law References” in the law library or accessed with -Online: http://web.wmitchell.edu/law-review/staff-andeditor-resources/ Caitlin Miles Accountability and Support Coordinator 5: Effort “above and beyond” expectations. 4: Equivalent to an “A.” 3: Equivalent to a “B.” 2: Equivalent to a “C.” 1: Shows a “lack of effort.” Mandatory One-Point Deductions: ◦ A late assignment ◦ A misnamed assignment Mandatory Score of “1” ◦ Failure to check authorities E-mail to Associates monthly or bi-monthly with grades and Editor/Managing Editor comments. Incorporate feedback into future work. One 1 or Four 2’s: Meeting with Accountability and Support Coordinator. Two 1’s or Six 2’s : Meeting with EICs. More 1’s or 2’s: Meeting with EICs and faculty advisors. Discretionary penalties Jake Lorence Library Liaison Books checked out to the law review will be located in the Law Review Shelves, on the lower level of the library near the bottom of the stairs. ◦ You will need your Mitchell ID to access this room. ◦ Contact the front desk of the Library if your ID does not work or if you do not have a Mitchell ID. Place book back on the Law Review Shelves in the correct article spot or, if the book is non-circulating, in its correct spot in the library stacks when finished. Keep books on the Law Review Shelves. Non-circulating library books will be located in their usual place in the library stacks. Do NOT place a non-circulating book on a Law Review Shelf. If a source is “on reserve,” you must check it out in your name, not Law Review. Consult Associate Manual Associates doing a “Source Pull” requests the ILL Source we need is not carried by the WMCL Library. Fill out the online ILL form. Do not request an ILL in your own name, use "Law Review." ◦ Unless it is for your long paper Login to the ILLiad System (http://wmitchell.illiad.oclc.org/illiad). ◦ Login: Law Review ◦ Password: Volume41 Fill out and submit the ILL form Put “ILL Requested” on the source pull spreadsheet under location and highlight the entire row in green. Fill out the form with as much information as possible. However, the following information must be entered: ◦ Author/Editors ◦ Title ◦ Not Wanted After Date: [enter the date five days from the date of request] Ex: You are making the request on September 4, so you should enter September 9 as the “Not wanted after” date. ◦ In the “Notes” section, include the article author’s name, the article Editor’s name, and your name as person who made the request. For example: Author: Steenson Editor: Cronen Submitter: Jenny Rochat Also in the “Notes” section, include whether the book is available at a nearby library. WorldCat is a great source (www.worldcat.org). Be careful with ILLs sources. If a page becomes torn, spilled on, or otherwise damaged, let James, Cha, Jake, or librarian staff know. The law review is charged for damaged books. Depending on the situation, you may have to pay for the damage. Source Pull AC/PM Proof Quote Proof Put-Together Good afternoon! I have a source pull available for the Minnesota E-Discovery Working Group: Working Group 4 article. The article has 108 footnotes. I will send the article and template today, and the source pull will be due Tuesday, September 24 at 11:59 PM. Please let me know if you would like to work on this source pull! Thank you, James Schoeberl They lay the framework for a proper AC check by streamlining the process for finding citation authority Initiate the ILL process for books not in our library Focus on citations that require hard copies CS HOURS!!! You will receive a sample article and a blank source pull template Do the first 5 to 10 footnotes. Include hyperlink to online sources Note: If there is more than one source in a footnote, each source needs it’s own line. For example: Save the file in the correct format – ([Author Last Name]_[SourcePull]_[Your Last Name] Email the file to james.schoeberl@wmitchell.edu It’s the first—and arguably most important—step in the editorial process. It’s the only time during the editorial process when we actually check to see if the cited material supports the text of the article (hence the name authority check). It’s the first line of “editing” defense Turn on Track Changes. Check text and footnotes for Bluebook accuracy. Make changes as necessary. Make sure text is grammatically correct according to CMOS. Make changes as necessary. Check all cross-references (supra and infra). Highlight each supra and infra so that the editor knows that you checked them. Ensure that the cited source supports the proposition stated in the text. Leave helpful comments for the editor. Alter the substance of the article Change the “author’s voice” Add new footnotes Delete footnotes ◦ The author is the expert. We are simply editing the article for publication ◦ About.com: “Voice is the author’s style, the quality that makes his or her writing unique, and which conveys the author’s attitude, personality, and character.” ◦ We don’t want to put our voice into the article. ◦ Only correct blatant grammatical errors that are backed up by the CMOS. ◦ When in doubt, don’t make a change in the text. Instead, leave a comment for the editor. Be respectful with your comment. Think about what the source says and what the author has written. Do they match up? How closely do they match up? If you think that they do not match up, do the following things: ◦ Required: Review the source and see if you can find the correct pincite. Update the pincite as needed. You do not need to leave a comment. ◦ Required: If you cannot find the correct pincite, check the surrounding footnotes to see if another source nearby might support the proposition. If you find a surrounding source that works, update the footnote and leave a comment for the editor explaining what you did, and why you did it ◦ Required: If you cannot find the correct pincite, if there are no pertinent surrounding footnotes, and if you are confident that the source does not fit with what the author wrote, leave a comment for the editor. In your comment, explain why the cited authority does not support the text. ◦ Optional: Find a source that supports what the author wrote. In your comment to the editor, include a citation to the source that you found. This is not required, but it will help you earn grades of 4/5 You do not need to leave a comment if you: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Make a change that is directly supported by the Bluebook or Associate Manual Correct a pincite Correct an obvious grammatical error that is directly supported by the CMOS Correct an obvious spelling error You must leave a comment if: ◦ You make change that is not directly supported by the Bluebook, Associate Manual or CMOS ◦ You make a change that is only tangentially supported by the Bluebook, Associate Manual or CMOS ◦ You think that the cited authority does not support the proposition stated in the text ◦ You find some other error, but it’s a case of “author’s voice” ◦ There is a sentence that does not have a footnote, but you think that it should. Do not add a footnote! Feel free to try to find a source that would fit (not required, but will help you get a 4 or 5) You will get 20-25 ACs this year. On average, you will be responsible for 10-20 footnotes for each AC. You should not have more than 3 ACs at once. Initially, ACs may take up to 10 hours. But, you will get faster with practice. If you come across a difficult footnote: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Check the Associate Manual Consult the Bluebook Consult with a reference librarian Come to office hours in the LRO Contact your small group leader Contact any Board member Hi allYou have been assigned the AC1 for the Cronen article in Issue 1, which will be due at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, September 1st. The article and source pull are attached. This is one of the student case notes, so it is in pretty good shape, but please be sure you take the time to AC it properly. As a reminder, save the document as Cronen_AC1_RangeX_Lastname. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to send me an email. See below for your assigned ranges. Range # Associate 1 Steph M. Burr 2 Seth Harrington 3 Kevin Hill 4 Jennifer Johnson 5 Michael Ervin 6 Daniela Kinova 7 Brian Kluk 8 Amy Krupinski 9 Melissa Lorentz 10 Christopher Mishek Thank you! John Smith Editor, Mitchell|Hamline Law Review Juris Doctor Candidate 2015 William Mitchell College of Law Footnotes 1-2 Footnotes 3-4 Footnotes 5-7 Send your completed AC to ◦ jacob.abdo@wmitchell.edu ◦ cschofield01@hamline.edu Make sure you label the file name correctly ◦ Cronen_AC1_Range1_[your last name].docx Guided Practice A proof is a comprehensive proofread of an entire article Something you do for CS hours Solicited via email by an editor and generally completed by only one Associate per article Two proofs are completed on each article Time to complete is usually about one week Proofs happen after both ACs, but before the Put-Together. While proofing check for: • • • • • Consistency within an article Typographical errors/Spelling/Grammar Proper punctuation Bluebook accuracy NOT support from the sources (that’s what ACs are for) Detailed step by step instructions are in the Associate Manual, but basically… 1. Read the text of the article, and 2. Read the footnotes in the article … checking for all things incorrect. In its 2004 Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed the Council’s comprehensive planning authority, that the Council uses to protect and enhance regional systems today. In its 2004 Lake Elmo v. Metropolitan Council decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed the Council’s comprehensive planning authority, which the Council uses to protect and enhance regional systems today. Id. § 473.175, subdiv. 3; 473.864, subdiv. 1. Id. §§ 473.175, subdiv. 3, 473.864, subdiv. 1. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg L.L.C., 229 F.R.D. 422, 439, (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (granting former employee’s motion for sanctions against employer for untimely production of some documents, failure to produce other documents, and failure to preserve relevant evidence). Zubulake v. UBS Warburg L.L.C., 229 F.R.D. 422, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (granting former employee’s motion for sanctions against employer for untimely production of some documents, failure to produce other documents, and failure to preserve relevant evidence). • Review entire article checking direct quotes for accuracy • CS Hours (volunteer basis unless nobody takes then Editors assign) DO DON’T • Check every direct quotation • No need to bluebook and surrounding text against citations or check for the cited authority (language, grammar throughout other punctuation, bluebook quote text in the article formatting, pincite) But…please point out glaring mistakes even if outside the quote. We’re all in this together! • The Associate Manual contains detailed instructions • Review both the TEXT and the FOOTNOTES of the entire article CHECK QUOTE AND SURROUNDING TEXT FOR: • • • • • Wording (check every word!!) Surrounding text (to ensure the quotation marks were placed properly) Punctuation Bluebook quotation formatting (ellipses, brackets, block quotes, etc.) Pincite The Court stated that the “Plaintiffs here in their promissory fraud claim do not attack the validity of the agreements” but instead “seek to recover…based on the terms of the contract.” The Court stated that the “Plaintiffs here in their promissory fraud claim do not attack the validity of the [agreements]” but instead “seek to recover… . . . based on the terms of the contract.” Cited Authority says: “Plaintiffs in their promissory fraud claim do not attack the validity of the real estate purchase contract or oral contract.” AC2 Margin Comment: This is not a direct quote from this case and seems to be more of a paraphrase. I suggest dropping the quotations. The court went on to reiterate that “the purpose of the rule is to ensure that the parties’ final understanding is not subject to change.” Quote Proof Margin Comment: I agree with AC2; however, the language is similar enough that dropping the quotes borrows too much exact language. I suggest editing the quote to be exact: “___________” Work with your partner to “Quote Proof ” the below sentence using the following cited authority the author provided in the footnote: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 152 (1803). The Court in Marbury held that “there is no difference between a patent for lands and the commission of an officer” and “the duty of the secretary is…the same.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 152 (1803) The Court in Marbury held that “there is no difference between a patent for lands and the commission of an officer” and “the duty of the secretary is…the same.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 152150 (1803) The Court in Marbury held that “there is no difference between a patent for lands, and the commission of an judicial officer” and “[t]he duty of the secretary is… . . . the same.” Four edits made to the quote. One edit made to the pincite. Work on your own to “Quote Proof ” the below sentence using the following cited authority the author provided in the footnote: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 159 (1803). The Court in Marbury provided that “the appointment, under the constitution to be made by the president personally, must be made by the President also” and “the law would seem to contemplate that it should be made to the Secretary of State.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 159 (1803). The Court in Marbury provided that “the appointment, under the constitution to be made by the president personally, must be made by the President also” and “the law would seem to contemplate that it should be made to the Secretary of State.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 159 (1803). The Court in Marbury provided that “[t]he appointment being, under the constitution, to be made by the president personally, must be made by the President also” and “[t]he law would seem to contemplate that it should be made to the Ssecretary of Sstate . . . .” BB Rule 5.3(b)(iii) ellipsis rule After the ACs and Proofs . . . The EE asks for 5 to 10 volunteers (CS HOURS!!) to do a “group read” over approximately 4 hours Purpose? To catch mistakes while looking at the article “as a whole” Hi Associates, The first Issue 2 put-together is scheduled for October 10th at 1 pm. I need 16 volunteers, and the spots will be reserved on a first-come first-served basis. Please plan to spend at least 4 hours at this event, although you might get out earlier than 4 pm. Your job at the put-together is quite simple. Associates receive a range of pages from an article, in hard copy, and proof the range. This an easy way to get CS hours, AND you get to spend time with your fellow Associates. Pizza and dessert will be provided. If you volunteer, please inform me of any dietary restrictions. Thanks, Abby You meet with the EE to go through small sections of a print copy of the articles after about half of the editing process. (Redlining) We are looking to catch mistakes (e.g., incorrect citations, grammar mistakes) We are looking to ensure consistency and flow (e.g., a name referred to the same way throughout the paper) You will be given one page from an article from last year. Read the page and note any changes in ink that you would make. This can include grammar, spelling, incorrect citations . . . Put your name on the top right-hand corner of the paper. Turn it in! Every Associate must complete a Long Paper this semester The Long Paper can be a Case Note or a Comment It must: ◦ consist of at least 25 pages of text and 25 pages of footnotes ◦ be divided into parts, including an introduction and conclusion Every Long Paper will be considered for publication following the review process Topic Selection ◦ Jillian (the Lexis Rep) ◦ Professors and practitioners in the field Long Paper Guidelines During the Writing Process ◦ Your assigned editor Mid-August: Notes & Comments Editors/Law Review Mentor assignments August 31 at 9 PM: Long paper topic due September 14 at 9 PM: Outline completed and major sources selected October 19 at 9 PM: First draft due November 16 at 9 PM: Final draft due ACs may begin as early as next week The first PM is on August 21st. First two assignments will not count towards your grade (unless you get a score of 1). Office hours in the law review office. You will have a meeting with your small group leader within the first few weeks of the semester to review your progress/performance Check the Associate Manual Check the Bluebook Meet with a Reference Librarian Consult with the assigning editor Monthly meetings Small group leaders Any Board member
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
